Caveat emptor. “Let the buyer beware.” That hoary cliché of economics says that the consumer must take responsibility for knowing what he or she is buying. But it also assumes that the seller will make enough information available for consumers so they can make an informed and responsible choice. But what happens if the seller doesn’t have the information the consumer needs? If that consumer has a choice between two products, one with a full analysis and one without, the seller who knows what’s in his or her product may have a significant advantage.
That has been the situation in the fuel pellet industry, says Chris Wiberg, chief operating officer of Twin Ports Testing Inc. There has been a dearth of information generally comparing fuel pellets made from different feedstocks. Additionally, a significant number of pellet manufacturers have never had their products analyzed or have only had single samples of their products analyzed. Other energy sources such as coal, natural gas or fuel oil are standardized products that are consistent among many suppliers. With biomass fuel pellets, the properties of the fuel can vary not only with the type of feedstock but the time of year the feedstock was harvested.
Small Beginnings
بیوتکنولوژی صنعتی Industrial Biotechnology
این وبلاگ محلی برای به اشتراک گذاردن یافته ها و دانسته های علوم بیوتکنولوژیستبیوتکنولوژی صنعتی Industrial Biotechnology
این وبلاگ محلی برای به اشتراک گذاردن یافته ها و دانسته های علوم بیوتکنولوژیستSmart Scandinavians: Using sewage to make gasoline
With gas prices at an all-time high, talk of alternative fuels is on the uprise. Last week the International Herald Tribune ran an interesting article on the use of biogas in Sweden. That’s right, the Scandinavian country known for meatballs, ABBA and gorgeous blonds is on the forefront of turning sewage waste into enough fuel to run thousands of buses and cars.
Biogas or bio methane refers to a gas produced by the biological breakdown of organic matter. It’s not only sewage that can be used; the Swedish government also converts confiscated alcohol smuggled at the border into a biogas used to fuel a train in the southeastern part of the country.
Cars that could use biogas began to be marketed on a large scale earlier in the decade. Since then they have become a hit; emissions are pretty much odorless, the fuel is cheaper than gasoline and many municipalities in Sweden have provided tax incentives for individuals running their vehicles on biogas. Plus for the eco-friendly minded, turning sewage into fuel seems pretty ideal. “When you’re in the bathroom in the morning and you can see something good come of that, it’s easy to be taken in by the idea - it’s like a utopia,” said Andreas Kask, a business consultant who drives a taxi in Gotheborg.
Two Swedish cities, Gothenburg and Boras, have been at the forefront of using biogas, fueling their fleets of buses, trucks and other city vehicles with the renewable fuel. Unfortunately, the future for biogas is unknown. With an increasing popularity in ethanol and driver complaints of too few filling stations, biogas has some obstacles to overcome. But as Bo Ramberg, chief executive of FordonsGas which operates the largest chain of biogas filling stations in Scandinavia, says, “we already strongly believe that biogas is the best fuel for lower emissions - no discussion about it.”
Swedish biogas tour
Swedish biogas tour provides glimpse into methane to natural gas process
Source: Western United Dairymen Weekly News Update July 23, 2004
The Swedish biogas industry provided a hands-on learning experience for a recent touring group of California dairy and bio-energy experts interested in learning how to capture and clean the methane that rises from manure lagoons on California dairies, creating a renewable source of natural gas.
The eight-person delegation is the nucleus of a group studying how to create renewable methane cow manure. The group is funded by a $300,000 grant from the USDA Rural Development that is being administered by Western United Dairymen. The project is a collaborative effort that draws on some of the most knowledgeable people and organizations in the fields of biogas production, pollution mitigation, transportation, and renewable energy use.
The year-long project's goal is to examine the technical and financial feasibility of producing renewable methane from dairy biogas as a value-added product for use either on the farm and/or as a substitute for natural gas in the California fuel market.
Sweden has 20 energy plants that utilize a variety of organic wastes - - including source separated household waste, animal manure, food processing wastes and slaughterhouse wastes. The waste materials are anaerobically digested to produce biogas. The biogas is then upgraded by removing the hydrogen sulfide, moisture and Co2, creating a natural gas that is useable as a fuel in motor vehicles.
Centralized anaerobic digester in Linkoping, Sweden.
Biogas fuels a wide variety of vehicles in Sweden and is seen as an economically viable fuel in a country where gasoline prices run around $6 to $7 a gallon, said Allen Dusault of Sustainable Conservation, one of the group who visited biogas production facilities.
“The biogas industry is a thriving proposition in Sweden,” said Dusault. “We met with a wide group of business people, engineers and elected officials who are very enthusiastic about the potential of biogas. They see its practical applications on a day to day basis. The trip provided us with a very good base of knowledge for our study of how we might be able to create a renewable source of fuel from methane.”
Plant in Boras, Sweden upgrades biogas to renewable methane
Members of the group include Dusault; James Boyd, a commissioner with the California Energy Commission; Ken Krich, Sustainable Conservation; John Boesel and Brad Rutledge, Cal Start; Neil Clifton, Inland Empire Utility Agency; Rob Williams, UC Davis; and Dara Salour, RCM Digesters.
-
Click here to download the entire 51-page report on the trip (Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader)
-
Click here for photogallery of Sweden trip
Pellet Properties
Pellet fuels had to be tested using methods designed for other fuels such as coal. With the publication of the new standards, pellet testing will become uniform between testing labs.
Pellet Properties
Economists exhort consumers to gather as much information as possible before making a purchase. But for those buying fuel pellets for residential or industrial heat, basic
information such as heat content, ash and chloride can be hard to obtain. The Pellet Fuels Institute is helping pellet manufacturers create testing programs to help consumers know what they are buying.
information such as heat content, ash and chloride can be hard to obtain. The Pellet Fuels Institute is helping pellet manufacturers create testing programs to help consumers know what they are buying.
The pellet fuel industry started in the early 1980s in response to the energy price shocks of the 1970s. The U.S. market has largely been limited to residential heating and fireplaces. The equipment for this market didn’t require strict quality specifications. The Pellet Fuels Institute, the trade association that represents pellet manufacturers, industry suppliers, appliance manufacturers and retailers, released a set of standards for the industry in 1995. “They were pretty loose,” Wiberg says.
The standards created two classes of pellets—premium and standard. The standards specified ash content, fines and diameter, and had a recommendation for sodium content. The weak points of the standards were a lack of any sort of schedule of testing and acceptable test methods. “It became kind of an optional sort of thing—if you want to use them go ahead,” Wiberg says. “The Pellet Fuels Institute put them out there as standards but there was no enforcement.”
What happened is that some manufacturers wound up testing their products only once, and assumed their products would continue to match that initial analysis. “So you had people who tested their product one time and it looked like premium [grade] so they sold their pellets as premium from thereon out,” Wiberg says.
After a discussion about standards at a Pellet Fuels Institute meeting, Wiberg was approached by a manufacturer who said he would have to start testing his product. “I asked if he had ever tested his product and he hadn’t,” he continues. “The strange thing about it was that he didn’t even know he had to. When he went out for his initial order of bags, the bag supplier printed a guaranteed analysis on the bag, even though there was never an analysis of the material. So it is definitely an industry where some people think a pellet is a pellet is a pellet.”
Selling a product as premium grade without an analysis to back it up can open up manufacturers to liability problems. “It’s truth in advertising if nothing else,” Wiberg says.
A New Standard
Other problems with regulations led the Pellet Fuels Institute to look into revamping its pellet standards. Wiberg says a stove manufacturer was spending more than a quarter of a million dollars per year on repairs under warranty because the fuel used in those stoves was supposedly meeting quality specifications. “Somebody would say come out and repair my defective stove and when they got there they realized it was a fuel problem,” Wiberg says. “It said premium on the bag but it wasn’t.”
In 2005, the institute invited Twin Ports Testing to give a presentation on testing methods. They presented a problem to Wiberg because the Pellet Fuels Institute standards didn’t require specific testing methods. “I could tell them how I tested their materials, but not because that’s what I was told to do,” he adds. “Somebody would say ‘I need moisture number and ash and Btus. Here are my pellets.’ If I asked what method they needed to test to, they would have no clue.”
While at the institute meeting, Wiberg was invited to sit in on a meeting of the group’s standards committee where he heard about the stove manufacturers problems. “I listened to that and I knew what the industry needed to hear,” he says. “They needed to understand quality control and quality assurance. I threw out my presentation and told the group they needed to understand quality from the laboratory’s point of view.”
Wiberg uses the coal industry as an example of the kind of standards the pellet industry needs. “You can’t touch coal without using an ASTM procedure,” he says. “This industry didn’t have that.” He also stresses the need for proficiency testing and the need to use traceable standards. He adds that the pellet industry doesn’t need specifications as comprehensive as the coal industry, but it does require a true quality control program.
The standards created two classes of pellets—premium and standard. The standards specified ash content, fines and diameter, and had a recommendation for sodium content. The weak points of the standards were a lack of any sort of schedule of testing and acceptable test methods. “It became kind of an optional sort of thing—if you want to use them go ahead,” Wiberg says. “The Pellet Fuels Institute put them out there as standards but there was no enforcement.”
What happened is that some manufacturers wound up testing their products only once, and assumed their products would continue to match that initial analysis. “So you had people who tested their product one time and it looked like premium [grade] so they sold their pellets as premium from thereon out,” Wiberg says.
After a discussion about standards at a Pellet Fuels Institute meeting, Wiberg was approached by a manufacturer who said he would have to start testing his product. “I asked if he had ever tested his product and he hadn’t,” he continues. “The strange thing about it was that he didn’t even know he had to. When he went out for his initial order of bags, the bag supplier printed a guaranteed analysis on the bag, even though there was never an analysis of the material. So it is definitely an industry where some people think a pellet is a pellet is a pellet.”
Selling a product as premium grade without an analysis to back it up can open up manufacturers to liability problems. “It’s truth in advertising if nothing else,” Wiberg says.
A New Standard
Other problems with regulations led the Pellet Fuels Institute to look into revamping its pellet standards. Wiberg says a stove manufacturer was spending more than a quarter of a million dollars per year on repairs under warranty because the fuel used in those stoves was supposedly meeting quality specifications. “Somebody would say come out and repair my defective stove and when they got there they realized it was a fuel problem,” Wiberg says. “It said premium on the bag but it wasn’t.”
In 2005, the institute invited Twin Ports Testing to give a presentation on testing methods. They presented a problem to Wiberg because the Pellet Fuels Institute standards didn’t require specific testing methods. “I could tell them how I tested their materials, but not because that’s what I was told to do,” he adds. “Somebody would say ‘I need moisture number and ash and Btus. Here are my pellets.’ If I asked what method they needed to test to, they would have no clue.”
While at the institute meeting, Wiberg was invited to sit in on a meeting of the group’s standards committee where he heard about the stove manufacturers problems. “I listened to that and I knew what the industry needed to hear,” he says. “They needed to understand quality control and quality assurance. I threw out my presentation and told the group they needed to understand quality from the laboratory’s point of view.”
Wiberg uses the coal industry as an example of the kind of standards the pellet industry needs. “You can’t touch coal without using an ASTM procedure,” he says. “This industry didn’t have that.” He also stresses the need for proficiency testing and the need to use traceable standards. He adds that the pellet industry doesn’t need specifications as comprehensive as the coal industry, but it does require a true quality control program.
After the 2005 meeting, the group’s standards committee created a road map to investigate and promulgate an effective quality control program. The program is more than a set of standards and testing methods. “Standardizing test methods is great, but unless you’re going to have some level of enforcement that doesn’t mean much,” Wiberg says. “The standards also have to mean something. We had to go through every single parameter and ask why we should regulate that parameter.”
One standard that got the boot was the sodium standard. Sodium is often used as a proxy for the amount of chloride in a solid fuel, Wiberg says. Too much chloride can cause metal in stoves to corrode. In some fuels this is close enough, but other fuels can have chloride salts of calcium and magnesium so the sodium level will badly underestimate the chloride level. “They thought it was easier to test for sodium than chloride,” Wiberg says. “But it’s not a very representative test.”
There were other tests that were valuable to the pellet industry in Europe that weren’t being used in the United States. “One of those was the pellet durability index,” Wiberg says.
Hearth and Home
There are differences between the pellet markets in the United States and overseas. In Europe, pellets are used mainly for central heating in furnaces where the American market is primarily stoves and fireplaces. The need for standards that reflected the different markets for pellet fuels became the premise for framing the new standards. “A stove is a lot more finicky,” Wiberg says. “It has to have [pellets of] a very consistent density and diameter. So we had to ask, ‘What should a good, high-quality, high-efficiency stove be burning?”
One standard that got the boot was the sodium standard. Sodium is often used as a proxy for the amount of chloride in a solid fuel, Wiberg says. Too much chloride can cause metal in stoves to corrode. In some fuels this is close enough, but other fuels can have chloride salts of calcium and magnesium so the sodium level will badly underestimate the chloride level. “They thought it was easier to test for sodium than chloride,” Wiberg says. “But it’s not a very representative test.”
There were other tests that were valuable to the pellet industry in Europe that weren’t being used in the United States. “One of those was the pellet durability index,” Wiberg says.
Hearth and Home
There are differences between the pellet markets in the United States and overseas. In Europe, pellets are used mainly for central heating in furnaces where the American market is primarily stoves and fireplaces. The need for standards that reflected the different markets for pellet fuels became the premise for framing the new standards. “A stove is a lot more finicky,” Wiberg says. “It has to have [pellets of] a very consistent density and diameter. So we had to ask, ‘What should a good, high-quality, high-efficiency stove be burning?”
After three years of work, the Pellet Fuels Institute is close to releasing its revised quality standards. The new standards will recognize four grades of pellets: super premium, premium, standard and utility. “Each grade has a specific battery of specifications, both physical and chemical,” Wiberg says.
The other part of the specifications is the recognized testing methods for each of the quality parameters. “We did an extensive research project on what methods are out there and who is using what method,” Wiberg says. “It wasn’t just the European Union. Germany had its own standards as did Austria, Sweden and Britain. There are about a dozen countries that have something going on with pellets. Everybody is kind of doing their own thing.”
ASTM International has no standard for fuel pellets, but the Pellet Fuels Institute specifications will follow the ASTM format. If the industry approves the rules, they will be presented to ASTM for consideration as a new standard. Most of the test methods used in the institute’s standards are based on recognized ASTM methods.
A few of the methods did have to be modified to cope with the unique property of fuel pellets. Wiberg describes the bulk density test, which in the ASTM standard required a cubic-foot container of pellets to be dropped 6 inches three times. Because pellets are a loose product, dropping a container from 6 inches will cause a significant number of the pellets to fly up and out of the box. So a method using a quarter-cubic-foot box that was tapped from about an inch high was adapted. The group then had to determine how many taps were needed to get a similar result to the ASTM standard. “We probably ran 100 density tests to tell us we were going to tap it 25 times. That seems like a simple thing to recommend, but it probably took us two days to figure out how many times you have to tap pellets.”
The other phase of the process for the Pellet Fuels Institute is to provide the tools necessary for pellet manufacturers to start doing quality control in their own plants. “The mill operators are not chemists,” Wiberg says. “They don’t necessarily know where to buy this equipment and how to run the tests.”
Twin Ports Testing went to its suppliers to create a suite of testing equipment that would measure the quality parameters of pellets in an industrial setting. “We needed to find things that nonchemistry-type people can use,” Wiberg says. “We also need something that will be representative of the test method used in a lab. It also can’t be an overnight deal, because an ongoing [quality assurance/quality control] process control program needs same day results.”
The final piece of the quality puzzle is enforcement. The best standards in the world aren’t going to do any good if the consumer isn’t confident the product meets those standards. So the Pellet Fuels Institute is planning to implement a registration system for manufacturers. Pellet makers would have to show that they have a quality control program and submit quality data quarterly. “The data will show that the company made the grade in the first place and the company continues to comply on an ongoing basis,” Wiberg says. “If everything works out right, the company can say its pellets are premium quality and can prove its pellets are premium. Then they get put into the registration system that will be a list of all the mills in the program.”
The other part of the specifications is the recognized testing methods for each of the quality parameters. “We did an extensive research project on what methods are out there and who is using what method,” Wiberg says. “It wasn’t just the European Union. Germany had its own standards as did Austria, Sweden and Britain. There are about a dozen countries that have something going on with pellets. Everybody is kind of doing their own thing.”
ASTM International has no standard for fuel pellets, but the Pellet Fuels Institute specifications will follow the ASTM format. If the industry approves the rules, they will be presented to ASTM for consideration as a new standard. Most of the test methods used in the institute’s standards are based on recognized ASTM methods.
A few of the methods did have to be modified to cope with the unique property of fuel pellets. Wiberg describes the bulk density test, which in the ASTM standard required a cubic-foot container of pellets to be dropped 6 inches three times. Because pellets are a loose product, dropping a container from 6 inches will cause a significant number of the pellets to fly up and out of the box. So a method using a quarter-cubic-foot box that was tapped from about an inch high was adapted. The group then had to determine how many taps were needed to get a similar result to the ASTM standard. “We probably ran 100 density tests to tell us we were going to tap it 25 times. That seems like a simple thing to recommend, but it probably took us two days to figure out how many times you have to tap pellets.”
The other phase of the process for the Pellet Fuels Institute is to provide the tools necessary for pellet manufacturers to start doing quality control in their own plants. “The mill operators are not chemists,” Wiberg says. “They don’t necessarily know where to buy this equipment and how to run the tests.”
Twin Ports Testing went to its suppliers to create a suite of testing equipment that would measure the quality parameters of pellets in an industrial setting. “We needed to find things that nonchemistry-type people can use,” Wiberg says. “We also need something that will be representative of the test method used in a lab. It also can’t be an overnight deal, because an ongoing [quality assurance/quality control] process control program needs same day results.”
The final piece of the quality puzzle is enforcement. The best standards in the world aren’t going to do any good if the consumer isn’t confident the product meets those standards. So the Pellet Fuels Institute is planning to implement a registration system for manufacturers. Pellet makers would have to show that they have a quality control program and submit quality data quarterly. “The data will show that the company made the grade in the first place and the company continues to comply on an ongoing basis,” Wiberg says. “If everything works out right, the company can say its pellets are premium quality and can prove its pellets are premium. Then they get put into the registration system that will be a list of all the mills in the program.”
The list of registered manufacturers would be made available to consumers. “Here is a provider with a good quality control program and here is one that isn’t,” Wiberg says. “Which are you going to buy from?” Stove manufacturers could also require consumers to buy pellets from registered manufacturers or void their warranties.
The first version of the specifications was released in October. The board of the Pellet Fuels Institute made some changes and the standards committee proceeded to convert the standards into ASTM format. The standards then went through a legal review followed by more revisions in February. The current version of the specifications will again be reviewed by the institute’s board in late June. Once the board approves the revisions, the standards will go out for an industry vote, likely at the organizations annual meeting in July. “It looks like there is a chance the rules could be adopted as early as this summer,” Wiberg says. “Once that happens, then we can start implementing them.”
Jerry W. Kram is a Biomass Magazine staff writer. Reach him at jkram@bbibiofuels.com or (701) 738-4962.
The first version of the specifications was released in October. The board of the Pellet Fuels Institute made some changes and the standards committee proceeded to convert the standards into ASTM format. The standards then went through a legal review followed by more revisions in February. The current version of the specifications will again be reviewed by the institute’s board in late June. Once the board approves the revisions, the standards will go out for an industry vote, likely at the organizations annual meeting in July. “It looks like there is a chance the rules could be adopted as early as this summer,” Wiberg says. “Once that happens, then we can start implementing them.”
Jerry W. Kram is a Biomass Magazine staff writer. Reach him at jkram@bbibiofuels.com or (701) 738-4962.
Universal protocol for generating 100bp size standard
Universal protocol for generating 100bp size standard for endless usage
Chandrasekhar Natarajan
Human Molecular Genetics Laboratory
Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology
Poojapura, Thiruvananthapuram
Kerala, India-695014
Tel: 91 471 2345899/2348753
Fax: 91 471 2348096
E-mail: chandrurgcb@yahoo.com
Neetha N. Vijayan
Human Molecular Genetics Laboratory
Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology
Poojapura, Thiruvananthapuram
Kerala, India-695014
Tel: 91 471 2345899/2348753
Fax: 91 471 2348096
E-mail: neethav@yahoo.com
Linda Koshy Vaidyan
Human Molecular Genetics Laboratory
Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology
Poojapura, Thiruvananthapuram
Kerala, India-695014
Tel: 91 471 2345899/2348753
Fax: 91 471 2348096
E-mail: lindakoshy@yahoo.co.in
Anila Mathew
Human Molecular Genetics Laboratory
Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology
Poojapura, Thiruvananthapuram
Kerala, India-695014
Tel: 91 471 2345899/2348753
Fax: 91 471 2348096
E-mail: anilamathew8@yahoo.com
Lekshmy Srinivas
Human Molecular Genetics Laboratory
Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology
Poojapura, Thiruvananthapuram
Kerala, India-695014
Tel: 91 471 2345899/2348753
Fax: 91 471 2348096
E-mail: lekshmyrgcb@yahoo.com
Moinak Banerjee*
Human Molecular Genetics Laboratory
Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology
Poojapura, Thiruvananthapuram
Kerala, India-695014
Tel: 91 471 2345899/2348753
Fax: 91 471 2348096
E-mail: moinak_ban@hotmail.com
moinak@gmail.com
*Corresponding author
Financial support: We thank the Department of Biotechnology and Indian Council of Medical Research of Government of India for Financial support and Research fellowship.
Keywords: 100bp ladder, cost effective, DNA size standards, endless usage.
|
Abbreviations: |
AFLPs: Amplified Fragment LengthPolymorphisms |
| Abstract | Reprint (PDF) |
| Abstract Article References |
|---|
Developing countries are facing severe bottlenecks in the technological advancement in biotechnology, due to restrictions imposed by patent protected products and protocols. This calls for designing of simple and cost-effective alternatives for the indispensable products like DNA molecular weight markers. We demonstrate a novel, rapid and cost-effective method of making in-house 100bp ladder for routine use. In our method we use a single forward primer and five reverse primers designed on the backbone sequence of a commonly used vector template. These primers are used at a universal annealing temperature to amplify ten DNA fragments of accurate size ranging from 100bp to 1000bp. Our PCR-based method can provide size standards for an endless usage.
| Article |
| Article Materials and Methods Results and Discussion Figure 1 Table 1 References |
The prospect of high-throughput tools in the post-genomic era has revolutionized the field ofmolecular biology. DNA chip-based assays, micro arrays, sequencing and TaqMan probes have rapidly increased the pace of genomic research. Developing countries have not been able to keep up the same pace in scientific growth as compared to the developed countries, due to the technological gap. Microsatellites, AFLPs, SNPs and RAPDs are some of routine molecular techniques that are extensively used in genotyping. The developed countries have transformed from routine gel electrophoresis to capillary platforms while developing countries still use routine gel electrophoresis for their genotyping activities. In any molecular biology laboratory the use of size standard for gel electrophoresis is a prerequisite. Most of the research groups involved in large-scalemolecular biology studies needs to spend a sizable fraction of their research funds in acquiring these size standards.
Most of the conventional methods of generating size standards either require tedious cloning with several tandem repeats to construct special vectors followed by partial digestion of these vectors or restriction digestion of Lambda phage viruses (Sambrook et al. 1989). These restriction fragments require specialized treatments to dephosphorylate the ends to prevent self-ligation. These enzymatic treatments are prone to failures for various reasons. Therefore, in order to minimize the problems of reproducibility and minimize thecost on size standards we have developed a rapid and cost effective method which can provide us endless usage of size standards for routine laboratory use.
We demonstrate an authentic method for generating DNA fragments that can be used as size standards for routine gel electrophoresis. In order to make our system more accessible to researchers we selected a universal TA cloning vector, the pGEM®-T vector system (Promega) as our template, so that the PCR products of required sizes can be cloned. We generated 100 - 1000bp fragment sizes using two templates. 100 - 500bp fragment sizes were generated using the self-ligated pGEM®-T vector template while 600 - 1000bp fragment sizes were generated from the recombinant pGEM®-T vector template containing a 500bp insert. The self ligated pGEM®-T vector was prepared by end filling the 3’ overhang of linearized vector by adding 5U of T4 DNA Polymerase (NEB), 1X T4 DNA polymerase buffer along with 100 µM of each dNTP in a total reaction volume of 30 µl. Mixture was incubated in 37ºC for 5 min and the reaction was terminated by adding 2 µl of 0.5M EDTA (Sambrook et al. 1989). The vector was purified using GFX column and self-ligated. The second recombinant pGEM®-T vector template was prepared by cloning a 504 bp PCR product (hereinafter mentioned as approximate 500bp fragment) obtained from our earlier study into pGEM®-T system (Chandrasekhar et al. 2005). The recombinant plasmid was isolated from the positive clone and subsequently sequenced to confirm the exact insert size.
The primers were designed on the pGEM®-T vector sequence backbone, based on the anticipated product sizes. We consecutively reduced the cost by selecting a single common forward T7 primer along with five reverse primers. All these primers were used for both the vector templates, i.e. the self ligated template and the recombinant plasmid with approximate 500bp insert. These five primers were designed strictly based on the product size (Figure 1a). The primer sequences areshown in Table 1. The 100R primer was designed carefully flanking the MCS, without hampering the T overhangs. While designing the reverse primers, the primer length was adjusted to get an optimum annealing at universal temperature condition.
PCR amplification was carried in a total volume of 30 µl.Each reaction consisted of 1X Taq buffer with 1.5 mM MgCl2, 1.2 U of Taq polymerase (BG), 0.25 mM of dNTPs (Amersham) and 10 pM of primer per reactions. Amplifications were performed in similar cycling conditions in thermocycler (BioRad) and programmed as follows: initial denaturation at 95ºC for 3 min, followed by 45 cycles of at 95ºC for 30 sec, annealing at 50ºC for 30 sec, extension at 72ºC for 30 sec, and final extension at 72ºC for 5 min, and held at 4ºC. The amplification products were separated using 1.5% agarose gel in 0.5X TBE buffer and stained with ethidium bromide visualized using a Fluor-S Multi Imager (BioRad). The molecular weight of each band was estimated by comparing with a co-migrating 1 kb plus ladder (Invitrogen) and 100bp ladder (NEB).
The crux of this method is the amplification of ten DNA fragments of accurate size ranging from 100bp to 1000bp using two vector templates with minimal primers at universal PCR conditions. Among the two vector template, one was a commercial pGEM®-T vector which was modified to form a self-ligated vector while the second vector template was a recombinant pGEM®-T vector having an approximate 500bp insert. The self-ligated vector was used to generate five fragments ranging from 100 to 500bp and the second recombinant template which had 500bp insert was used to generate 600bp to 1000bp size. We were able to optimize the PCR amplification for both the templates at similar cycling condition using a common forward T7 primer and five different reverse primers namely 100R, 200R, 300R, 400R and 500R (Figure 1b) to generate fragment sizes of 100bp to 1000bp fragments. A total of ten fragments were amplified with their respective primer pairs in separate tubes in a single shot and the PCR products were mixed together to create the DNA ladder. The intensity of banding patterns was similar for all bands irrespective of the sizes. These PCR amplicons were quantified by spectrophotometer and reconstituted to suite our convenient concentration. The band sizes were estimated by gel electrophoresis along with a co-migrating commercial 100bp ladder from NEB and1kb plus ladder from Invitrogen in 1.5% agarose gel (Figure 1c).
As per our method once the self ligated pGEM®-T vector and the recombinant pGEM®-T vector is prepared, then using the described primers, the 100bp size standard can be generated in-house for endless usage. This method can be developed and used by any individual with their respective inserts in their own laboratory. The vectors can be propagated whenever required. Thus by adopting this method, researcher can be ensured of an unlimited supply of 100bp ladder at low cost. Additionally, customized ladder can be obtained by varying the size of insert fragment as well as varying the primer combinations according to the need of the researcher. However, the most advantageous part is that, one requires the same set of primers and similar PCR conditions for generating the ladders by varying the recombinant clones with 500+, 1000+bp insert fragments.
We found our system to be very simple and cost effective when compared to other commercial systems. Endless usage of size standards is available from only Seegene (www.seegene.com) which uses 12 different templates and two primers for each template. While conventional size standards available from Sigma, Promega, New England Biolabs, Amersham, Boerhinger Mannheim, Stratagene and Invitrogen require tedious cloning with several tandem repeats to construct special vectors. These vectors are fragmented to required size with specific restriction enzymes. This is prone to errors leading to poor reproducibility. We calculated the projected amount of money spent on procuring the commercial size standards for a period of ten years and found our size standard system to be the most economical and less labor intensive when compared with other systems (data not shown). Our system happens to be 4-fold cheaper than a similar kind of product available from Seegene. We would like to emphasize the utility of our work and its impact on the overall budget of a typical molecular biology laboratory in developing countries and make them available through open access to all researchers. This work is an outcome of our realization to self-sufficiency which prompted us to devise this method through innovative thinking. Our aim was not to compete with the existing companies, instead to encourage underprivileged institutions to carry forward their research by generating their own size standards.
CHANDRASEKHAR, N.; SAJEEV, T.V.; SUDHEENDRAKUMAR, V.V. and BANERJEE, M. Population dynamics of the Teak defoliator (Hyblaea puera Cramer) in Nilambur teak plantations using Randomly Amplified Gene Encoding Primers (RAGEP), BMC Ecology, February 2005, 5:1. [CrossRef]
Forever Size Markers, Cat no. M0100 [cited 2006]. Available from Internet: http://www.seegene.com/en/download/Manual_Forever100bpKit.pdf.
SAMBROOK, J.; FRITSCH, E.F. and MANIATIS, T. Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual, vol. I. 2nd edition. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1989. ISBN 0-87969-309-6.
Note: Electronic Journal of Biotechnology is not responsible if on-line references cited on manuscripts are not available any more after the date of publication.
Can owners afford humanitarian donations in agbiotech
Can owners afford humanitarian donations in agbiotech - The case of genetically engineered eggplant in India
Deepthi Kolady*
Department of Applied Economics and Management
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York, USA 14853
Tel: 607 255 8048
Fax: 607 255 9984
E-mail: dek28@cornell.edu
William Lesser
Susan Eckert Lynch Professor in Science and Business
Department of Applied Economics and Management
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York, USA, 14853
Tel: 607 255 4595
Fax: 607 255 9984
E-mail: whl1@cornell.edu
Website: www.cornell.edu
*Corresponding author
Financial support: Ford Foundation International Fellowships program and USAID funded ABSPII project provided financial support for the research.
Keywords: Bt eggplant, market segmentation, public-private partnership.
|
Abbreviations: |
Bt: Bacillus thuringiensis |
| Abstract | Reprint (PDF) |
| Abstract Article References |
|---|
Are humanitarian donations in agbiotech economically feasible for the donor? We address this question by conducting an ex ante analysis of genetically engineered (GE) eggplant in India. Our analysis indicates that it is economically viable for a firm to donate the technology for poor farmers’ use by restricting use to open pollinated varieties while selling hybrid verities. By extension, this means of segmenting markets would likely apply in cases where different levels of production technologies are used based on access to market, irrigation, and credit, at least for perishable crops.
| Article |
Facilitating access for the poor to new products and technologies has received considerable attention in recent years. Much has been focused on pharmaceuticals and AIDS drugs in particular, contributing to such changes as agreements by major firms to sell drugs at cost in developing countries and to investments by the Gates Foundation and others for developing pharmaceuticals focused on diseases of tropical countries, like malaria. Similar concerns over access have been expressed for agricultural technologies, with particular scrutiny of biotechnology. To date, small cotton farmers in India and China have been able to adopt those products at market prices, but the situation for food crops for home and local consumption may be quite different from cash commodity crops like cotton.
The costs of developing the novel traits and, particularly, satisfying national human and environmental safety regulations has meant the majority of the investment worldwide in these new products has been made by the private sector (except in China), a complete change from the public sector-driven Green Revolution (FAO, 2004). Private sector firms nonetheless have expressed a willingness to make full and partial donations of technologies for small farmer use. For example, the public sector may be able to negotiate non-exclusive licenses for use of the proprietary technologies at no or low cost in markets that are not of interest to the private sector. Such efforts have included full donations, such as all developing country farmers (Byerlee and Fischer, 2002). However, such gifts place a significant cost burden on the public sector in each recipient country for environmental and food safety regulatory reviews. Conversely, donations for mixed public/private use within the same country allow the public sector to piggyback on the private sector regulatory reviews. The private donor benefits from an increased impetus for a timely review process, as well as from general good will.
Public/private use donations go back at least to the 1990s when Monsanto donated a virus resistant technology for potatoes for use in Mexico (Salamini, 1999). The issue for the donating firm is always how to separate markets sufficiently so that the donated technology does not unduly cannibalize the target market – what Lybbert calls the ‘displacement effect’ (Lybbert, 2002). In the Mexican potato case, the solution was to donate the technology only for varieties used locally (in contrast to those commercial growers for say french fries would use). However, the cost of transforming and propagating potatoes meant this project was not economically viable.
Here, we examine ex ante another approach to enable the co-existence of a donated and marketed technology. The case applies to the use of a Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) construct for controlling shoot and fruit borers in eggplants (Eggplant shoot and fruit borer-ESFB) in India. Eggplant is an important non-seasonal vegetable produced throughout India. Yet ESFB reduce yields by up to 70 percent by destroying either the plant or the fruits (Dhandapani et al. 2003). The particular arrangement to be evaluated here provides for Mahyco (an Indian seed company partly owned by Monsanto) to donate the technology to public institutions for use in open pollinated seeds while selling Bt hybrid seeds with a premium (http://www.bic.searca.org/news/2005/nov/phi/27b.html). In this paper we focus only on whether the existence of lower cost Bt open pollinated variety (OPV) competitor product will cannibalize the Bt hybrid market to the extent that the donor has no incentive to donate the technology, thereby posing a threat to the feasibility of the donation project. The economic question then is if the willingness of farmers to pay a sufficient premium for hybrid Bt seed when open pollinated varieties with the same Bt gene construct are available without a surcharge compensate the firm adequately to ensure the feasibility of the project. Here we examine the conditions under which that apply, and project when similar arrangements will be viable/ feasible in other countries and for other crops.
Data Collection
The research team comprised of two enumerators and one of the authors conducted a farm-level survey using structured questionnaires in Maharashtra, India, in 2004-2005[i]. The districts included in the study were: Jalgaon, Nagpur, Ahmad Nagar, and Nanded (map of the study area is presented in Appendix 1). These districts were chosen to represent the four major geographical zones (Marathwada, Vidarbha, Khandesh, and Western Maharashtra) of the state, and to collect information on different market segments of the eggplant. Farmers were selected randomly from lists of eggplant farmers or from lists of all farmers provided by village administrative authorities. The sample included 249 eggplant farmers and 41-non eggplant vegetable farmers. In addition, general information on the sample villages was collected from village administrative authorities. The research team used separate questionnaires to interview eggplant growers, non-eggplant growers and village administrative authorities. In addition to collecting costs and production data, eggplant farmers were asked to state their willingness to purchase Bt seeds under different price and performance scenarios[ii]. Many area farmers were familiar with Bt cotton, so questions were not unduly abstract for them.
Field trials of Bt eggplant
The Bt hybrid eggplant developed by Mahyco contains a gene, Cry1Ac, obtained from Bacillus thuringiensis, which produces a protein toxic to ESFB. The Bt construct has been donated to selected Indian public institutions for development of OPV varieties only, and at public expense. The first round of field trials for Bt hybrid eggplant was conducted in 11 locations, covering seven states (Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh) in India, during 2004-2005. Five Mahyco hybrids suitable for different agro-climatic conditions were evaluated in these trials. Field trials of three additional hybrids were conducted in six locations in the year 2005-2006. In each trial location, Bt hybrid was grown next to non-Bt counter parts, and other conventional checks (popular OPV, competitor’s hybrid). Each trial location consisted of 20 plots with five replications of each of the four types (Bt hybrid, non-Bt counterpart, competitor’s hybrid, and popular OPV). The net plot size was 16.2 m2, thus the five replications resulted in an area of 81 m2 for each type. The data from field trials were extrapolated on per hectare basis for further analysis.
Field trial data of Bt hybrid eggplant provided by Mahyco indicate a 52% decrease in insecticides use, and a 39% decrease in the number of insecticide-sprayings compared to non-Bt counterparts. The average yield from Bt trial plots was 117% higher than that of non-Bt counterparts[iii].
We use partial budget analysis to estimate the expected returns from adopting the two variants of Bt technology (i.e. Bt hybrid and Bt OPV) for hybrid and OPV farmers. Production costs other than pesticide savings and seed costs are assumed to be identical to non-Bt seed. Non-hybrid Bt benefits are assumed to be proportionally similar to those for hybrids.
According to the scientists working in the project similar benefits could be expected for Bt OPV and Bt hybrid, as the Bt construct used is same. However, the proportionate benefits will be based on the current performances of hybrid and OPV eggplants. As with all field trial data, commercial performance may under-perform field trials. Due to annual and unpredictable variations in pest loads, the economic benefits from adopting Bt technology will be higher in high pest infested areas and years, while leading to lower gains when pest pressures are low. In recognition of the lower yield effects and pesticide savings achievable in commercial operations, a modest yield increase of 48%, and limited savings of 40% for pesticide expenses are used in our analysis of estimated returns from adopting Bt eggplant[iv].
The price increase of the Bt seed, which is related to the premium paid to the gene’s patent owner (Monsanto) and the developer of the new variety (Mahyco), is difficult to estimate. In the United States, markups on transgenic varieties follow two strategies: a premium paid above the price of seeds of the variety, and a technology fee paid by the planted acre (Hareau et al. 2005). The seed premium might be estimated based on per acre cost reduction in pesticides use with the assumption that the seed premium cannot be higher than the cost reductions achieved due to the use of Bt technology (Couvillion et al. 2000).
We estimated farmers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for Bt eggplant using data from the farm-level survey. Given that most of the surveyed farmers knew about Bt cotton in India, and during the survey farmers were told about the potential benefits and risks associated with the technology, using the estimated WTP as a proxy for seed markup (including seed premium and technology fee) for the technology not yet commercialized is reasonable. The procedure used to estimate the WTP for Bt hybrid seed is detailed below.
A modified version of double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation (CV) approach was used to elicit the WTP for potential adopters of Bt hybrid eggplant. The econometric procedure used to reflect the nature of the dependent variable (WTP) was constructed from the relevant survey question. Since the observed variable Y has an ordered response (willingness to adopt Bt hybrid or not, at two bids), there are two possible procedures that could be exploited here. A standard ordered probit model could be used, as this captures the ordinal nature of the dependent variable (Wooldridge, 2002). However, it assumes that the threshold values delineating the different categories are unknown and the interval-coded nature of the data would thus be ignored in estimation. The second procedure which we used in this analysis explicitly takes into account the values of known thresholds governing the intervals (Wooldridge, 2002). Specifically, we are interested in estimating the WTP for Bt hybrid seed, i.e. E(Y*/X), where Y* is the willingness to pay for Bt hybrid seeds. Hence, the potential adopters of the Bt hybrid technology in the sample are divided into the following three categories based on their responses to WTP question,
1. Prob (Y*
= P(Y*
=I Y= 
where 
() denotes the standard normal distribution [1]
Similarly
2. Prob (Pbid
=INY=
) [2]
3. Prob (Y*
)=INN=
[3]
Where IY (yes), INY (No, Yes), INN (No, No) are binary indicator choice variables for each farmer based on the above three categories. In addition to the interval – coded data, some responses are point data – either zero or some positive values. In order to make use of all these information, interval regression model is used for estimating the mean WTP. The likelihood for the interval regression including both interval-coded and point data is
[4]
where observations j
are point data; observations j
are right-censored; observations j
are interval-coded data; and observations j
are left censored. 
is the one step-down hypothetical bid price, 
is the right censored WTP, 
is the left censored WTP, and 
is the point data. The mean WTP can be obtained using the estimated parameters from equation (4) at the mean level of the explanatory variables. Following Wooldridge (2002), the formula for mean WTP of Bt hybrid is E (Y*/X) = 
. Since an open-ended CV format was used for eliciting the WTP for Bt OPV, the average of the responses was estimated and used in the analysis.
Current practices in eggplant production
About 60% of the eggplant growers in the sample use hybrids, purchasing seeds annually at an average price of Rs 75/10g (1 US $ was equivalent to 44.5 Indian Rupees at the time of survey). Other farmers grow open pollinated varieties (OPVs), which are produced by natural pollination, and use farm-saved seeds for succeeding years. Since our sample includes different groups of eggplant farmers in the different agro-climatic conditions in the survey districts our sample is representative of the state. The average market price of OPV seeds is Rs 3/10 g. OPV seeds are marketed in 50g packets compared to 10g packets for hybrid seeds.
Overall, our data suggest that hybrid and OPV growers follow quite different production systems. Hybrid growers use more purchased inputs with higher yields compared to OPV growers. For example, in our survey, hybrid growers spent Rs 32,692/ha on pesticides compared to Rs 12,913/ha for OPV growers. The average yield of hybrid growers (16.8 metric tons/ha) was 47% higher than that of OPV growers (11.4 metric tons /ha). Since the average price of hybrid and OPV eggplant fruits are similar, the high variable costs (mainly on pesticides) incurred narrows the profit range net of variable costs between hybrid and OPV growers.
For a better insight into the two groups of eggplant producers, Table 1 presents the farm and farmer characteristics of hybrid and OPV growers included in our survey. Our results suggest that hybrid farmers have larger farms, better access to banks, and larger households compared to OPV growers. Moreover, hybrid farmers rely more heavily on irrigation, in part because they produce crops during the kharif (monsoon) as well as the summer (dry) seasons[v]. Irrigation is a loss/ risk-reducing technology relatively more important for high than for low input crops. Hence, better access to irrigation is a notable distinction between the two producing groups.Our analysis does not include land costs which are unavailable. Typically, land situated closer to urban areas (which in our study applies to the hybrid growers) is higher valued than land in more remote locations. However, we have data on market size and use it as proxy for land value (i.e. population of the market in which the eggplant is marketed. For example, if it is a village market, population of the village is taken as the market size). Overall, current hybrid growers have better access to larger markets implying higher land value or cost. Hence they may invest in Bt hybrid technology to reduce the land cost/unit of output. Resource-limited farmers located in marginal areas may be further restrained by limited access to credit needed for hybrid production as well as lacking the management requirements of a more resource intensive technology, as well as possibly having limited market access. Determining which combination of these factors is more pertinent in inhibiting the adoption of hybrid technology by resource-poor farmers exceeds the scope of our analysis.
Potential benefits from Bt eggplant and feasibility of humanitarian donation
Table 2 presents the estimated additional benefits and costs of adopting Bt technology for hybrid growers under different projected Bt-seed prices. The seed prices used in Table 2 were derived from estimated values of farmers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for the Bt technology. The average estimated WTP for Bt hybrid seed was Rs 298/10 g packet for the full sample, which is more than four times the conventional hybrid seed price. Results from our analysis showed that the company profit decreases with a seed price (estimated WTP) above Rs 540/10g packet due to decrease in the projected adoption rate. Hence, we included Rs 540/10g packet as the upper level of Bt hybrid seed price in our analysis. Results from our analysis (Table 2) show hybrid growers gain more from adopting Bt hybrid varieties than from low priced Bt OPVs, due mainly to the yield effect of hybrid technology. Hence there is no incentive for the hybrid growers to shift to low priced Bt OPVs when they become available and suggests the feasibility of the donation project for the technology owner.
We also estimated the additional benefits and returns for OPV growers from adopting Bt OPV and Bt hybrid varieties (Table 3). Our analysis suggests that resource-limited farmers could gain more from adopting Bt hybrid mainly because of the expected yield benefits. Indeed, the analysis indicates that current OPV growers could earn a higher return over variable costs by adopting Bt hybrids, which raises the question of what inhibits change. In an earlier work Kolady and Lesser (2006) used standard economic techniques to project the adoption of Bt eggplant in both its hybrid and OPV variants under different scenarios of productivity and seed prices. The authors reported that hybrid farmers have higher probability to adopt Bt hybrid while OPV farmers have higher probability to adopt Bt OPV. The results reported in Kolady and Lesser (2006) also showed that with the introduction of low priced Bt OPV there will be a reduction in the expected adoption rate of Bt hybrid ( from 46% to 39%). However, most of the early adopters of Bt hybrid are more likely to continue with Bt hybrid eggplant.
However, increased total production due to the Bt technology may lower the market price of eggplant, making Bt hybrid less profitable. To analyze the robustness of the estimated returns in this study, a sensitivity analysis was conducted assuming a 25% reduction in the average market price, but keeping all other values as in Table 2 (i.e. for hybrid growers). The results are presented in Table 4. Our analysis suggests that although a reduction in the commodity price narrows the benefits between Bt hybrid and Bt OPV for hybrid growers, adopters of Bt hybrid are likely to gain more than those adopting Bt OPVs. Hence what is evident from our current analysis is that differences in the farm and farmer characteristics of hybrid and OPV growers imply that Bt hybrid and Bt OPV target different groups of farmers, and segmentation of the market is possible. Further, the productive merit of hybrid technology enables the co-existence of Bt hybrid and Bt OPVs by avoiding farmers’ switch to low priced Bt OPVs from Bt hybrids. In the long run, the private donor benefits from an increased impetus for a timely review process, as well as from general good will.
Overall, our data and analysis suggest that due to the differences in the production characteristics of hybrid and OPV growers, hybrid growers have a willingness to pay more for Bt hybrid and gain more from adopting Bt hybrid varieties than from adopting Bt OPVs. Thus, the donation plan adopted by Mahyco appears to allow for low cost access by small farmers while being commercially viable in the sense of allowing Mahyco to maximize revenues according to farmers’ willingness to pay more for higher productivity. Whether that price will allow for a profitable venture requires firm cost data beyond our access to determine. Conversely, the success of the donation plan depends heavily on the seed price charged for Bt hybrid by the private company. While our analysis suggests Mahyco can charge the estimated maximum WTP in our study as price without causing a shift from Bt hybrids to Bt OPVs, it is possible that the actual price set could cause more switching than is projected here.
The attribute which allows for the simultaneous existence of a premium price and no cost technology for eggplant growers (i.e. the feasibility of the donation project) in India is the existence of two distinct levels of production technology, one high input/yield, one low. A key condition for those two management systems being viable for the same crop is differences in access to irrigation. Related factors include land cost, itself associated with proximity to major markets in a country with a slow and costly transportation system. Many developing countries share the characteristics of limited access to irrigation, along with few major markets and high cost internal transportation systems, leading to a premium price for land closest to major markets. Thus, the ‘Mahyco model’ would seem to be viable/feasible for humanitarian donations of agbiotechnologies with the following provisos:
- Irrigation is required at least periodically as a risk-reducing input.
- Perishable crops are most affected by transport costs and delays so that the viability of the approach for nonperishable staples must be evaluated further,
- Transport costs are not subsidized or the cost effects of transport distance otherwise mitigated so that land prices are less affected by market proximity,
- Some farmers at least have access to short term capital allowing a greater investment in planting costs,
- The productivity of the premium priced seed (in this example Bt hybrids) is sufficiently greater than the alternative to justify a substantial price premium. For example, Bt cotton seed in India has been priced at four times the conventional alternative (subsequently reduced to three times by the state governments such as Andhra Pradesh’s), and;
- An earlier market entry by the premium-priced variant would seem to confer additional security for its market, but that factor was not specifically examined here.
Clearly, alternative approaches will be needed for other crops and conditions, but this preliminary analysis does indicate one viable approach is being implemented.
Authors acknowledge, Dr. Usha Barwale of Mahyco for sharing the field trial data of Bt hybrid eggplant with us.
BYERLEE, Derek and FISCHER, Ken. Accessing modern science: policy and institutional options for agricultural biotechnology in developing countries. World Development, June 2002, vol.30, no. 6, p. 931-948. [CrossRef]
COUVILLION, Warren C.; KARI, Fatimah; HUDSON, Darren and ALLEN, Albert. A preliminary economic assessment of roundup ready soybeans in Mississippi. Research Report 5, Mississippi State University, May 2000, p. 1-11.
DHANDAPANI, N.; SHELKAR, U.R. and MURUGAN, M. Bio-intensive pest management (BIPM) in major vegetable crops: an Indian perspective. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment, 2003, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 330-339.
FAO. The state of food and agriculture 2003-2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the needs of the poor. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2004. 208 p.
HAREAU, G.G.; NORTON, G.W.; MILLS, B.F. and PETERSON, E. Potential benefits of transgenic rice in Asia: a general equilibrium analysis. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 2005, vol. 44, no. 3, p. 229-246.
KOLADY, Deepthi Elizabeth and LESSER, William. Who adopts what kind of technologies? The case of Bt eggplant in India. AgBioForum [online]. 2006, vol. 9, no. 2, p. 94-103 [January 20 2007]. Available from Internet: http://agbioforum.org/v9n2/v9n2a04-kolady.htm. ISSN 1522-936X.
LYBBERT, Travis J. Technology transfer for humanitarian use: economic issues and market segmentation approaches. IP Strategy Today [online]. 2002, vol. 5, p. 17-24 [January 25 2007]. Available from Internet: http://www.biodevelopments.org/ip/ipst5.pdf.ISSN 1534-6447.
SALAMINI, Francesco. North-South Innovation Transfer. Nature Biotechnology, March 1999, vol. 17, p. BV11-BV12. [CrossRef]
WOOLDRIDGE, Jeffrey M. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press Cambridge, Mass, 2002. 752 p. ISBN 0-262-23219-7.
Note: Electronic Journal of Biotechnology is not responsible if on-line references cited on manuscripts are not available any more after the date of publication.
[i] A pilot survey was conducted two months prior to the survey to train the enumerators and to check the farmers’ level of understanding of the survey questions. Based on the feedback received from the survey pre-testing, necessary revisions were made in the original questionnaires.
[ii] In our survey, for the willingness to pay (WTP) question for Bt hybrid, the first bid offered was Rs 400/10 g packet, if the response was “no” from the farmer, a lower bid was offered .The lower bids offered were: Rs 350, Rs 300, Rs 250, Rs 200, and Rs 150 each for a 10g packet. The bid ranges were chosen to cover what we perceived to be a likely range of retail prices, and WTP for Bt hybrid seeds. During the pre-testing of the survey, we identified farmers’ difficulties in responding to a double-bounded CV framework for Bt OPV. This may be due to the fact that OPV seeds are marketed at a cheaper price and that farmers do not replace seeds of open pollinated varieties annually. Hence, an open-ended CV format where farmers were requested to state their WTP for Bt OPV eggplant was used.
[iii] The details of the field trials of GE eggplant can be found at (http://www.envfor.nic.in/divisions/csurv/geac/information_brinjal.htm).
[iv] These vales were selected comparing the field trial results of Bt eggplant with that of commercial performance of eggplant and Bt cotton in India.
[v] Kharif is the South-West monsoon season in India.
Biotechnology facts and figures
Biotechnologies are a strategic sector – from both an economic and social point of view – on an international scale: biological products currently represent 40% of the total registered products and if we take into account chemical medicines developed with biotechnologies,
we can estimated than over 50% of the new medicines originate from them, notably the most innovative medicines (insulin, growth hormones, recombinant growth factors, vaccinations, monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of cancers, inflammatory and infectious diseases, cell therapy, etc) and almost 250 million patients worldwide are already benefiting from advances made in biotechnologies, both in diagnostics and in treatment.
Small and medium-sized biotechnology firms (3,500 worldwide, approximately 250 to
The fields of application of biotechnologies are extremely varied, and beyond human or animal health, biotechnology firms are also developing innovative applications in various industrial fields, in environmental protection and in agri-business, in particular.
تاثیر بیوتکنولوژی صنعتی در فرآیند منسوجات نوین - قسمت اول
تاثیر بیوتکنولوژی صنعتی در فرآیند منسوجات نوین
نوشته :Anna-Lissa Auterinen
ترجمه :علی هاشمی قینانی
جامعه مدرن از بیوتکنولوژی انتظار دارد نقش راه حل مشکلات فرا روی بشر را ایفا کند .مشکلاتی نظیر کاهش ذخائر انرژی, بیماری های علاج ناپذیر , آلودگی و مسائل گوناگون دیگر ازجمله مواردی هستند که از بیوتکنولوژی انتظار می رود آنها را حل کند.
استفاده صنعتی از فناوری زیستی (biotechnology ) که از آن با عنوان فناوری زیستی سفید (white biotechnology) یاد می شود با هدف بکارگیری ذخائر تجدید شدنی همانند استفاده از فناوری سبز با حداقل مصرف انرژی با عث ظهور محصولات جدید و فرایند های جدید شده است.
فرآیند منسوجات یک صنعت رو به رشد است که ذاتا آب و انرژی ومواد سمی شیمیائی زیادی را مصرف میکند